|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr James Kierstead | Research Fellow | james.kierstead@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Still, I like to think that the latter has enough titillating detail, spanking new analysis, and breath-taking climaxes (if only of series of data) to satisfy most readers. For a start, the note contains a full breakdown of how much of the distribution each grade made up at all of our universities over the last twenty years. I’ve even shaded the different grades in different shades of blue and (yes) grey on a graph so that it’s easier to see which grades have waxed and which ones have waned. What that graph can tell us is that as As have expanded, other grades have been compressed, or (to use my own preferred technical term) squashed. Bs have been squashed from 47% to 38% of total grades, Cs from 20% to 17%, Ds from 9% to 5%. Only the Es have resisted any squashing, staying steady on 4% of total grades. The report also contains another graph that shows how As have long been closing the gap with Bs, which have held the position of Most Common Grade at New Zealand universities over most of the past two decades. It also shows, with alarming clarity, how As are now on course to overtake Bs (probably permanently) sometime in the next few years. These graphs give us a fuller picture of grade distributions at our universities than we were able to present in Amazing Grades, my previous report on this topic. They also make two things clear. One is that at New Zealand universities, it has been the top category (As) that has squeezed and squashed out the other grades. This is similar to the type of ‘grade compression’ that we see in the US, but contrasts with the situation in the UK, where the top two categories (first-class and second-class, upper division) degrees have expanded together, squashing out humbler classifications. The other is that if New Zealand universities want to avoid having As as their most common grade (something which is already the case at US universities), they will have to do something about grade inflation in the very near future. To find out more, read James' research note "50 Shades of Grades: Grade Compression at New Zealand Universities" here. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Nick Clark | Senior Fellow | nick.clark@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
It is well known that the Bill, and the fast-track regime more generally, is controversial among environmentalists. Our concerns are more about process, but they are no less important. The Bill had a ten-day submission window and did not have a regulatory impact statement. It was not easy for us to consider the Bill and its implications in such a short period without much information on it. The Bill contains some sensible administrative improvements, but its haste does not give confidence in its quality. The Bill continues to omit any requirement that fast-track projects deliver net benefits - that benefits should exceed costs, including those for the environment. The current test, whether proposals have "significant regional or national benefits”, is silent on costs. With the benefit test so murky, some expert panels considering fast-track projects are demanding rigorous cost-benefit analysis, while others are accepting mere assertions of economic impact. Without clear statutory direction, decision-making becomes a lottery. The Bill introduces Government Policy Statements to guide decisions, but while these could provide useful guidance, much depends on how they will be formulated. The Bill has no requirement to consult on their content, while the vague language about benefits invites panels to second-guess commercial viability – something they should steer clear of. Applicants will be allowed to challenge expert panel members. This, to put it politely, is novel. Concerns about bias or the quality of panel members are better addressed by ensuring they meet stronger requirements, including the need for a panel to include a member with economic expertise. There is no sunset clause or even a requirement to review the legislation’s operation. Supposedly temporary legislation pending RMA replacement should have a sunset clause. We support faster consenting to reduce the huge costs and prolonged delays for infrastructure and development, but speed must be balanced with rigour. We make numerous recommendations to improve the Bill and ensure that fast-tracking advances projects that increase national welfare, not merely those that tick boxes. The Bill is planned to be passed before Christmas. Yet good law-making requires time for proper consideration, including points raised by submitters. Ironically, the Regulatory Standards Act was passed two weeks ago. Its purpose is to improve the quality of legislation. It is a pity it was not in force when this Bill was developed. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Benno Blaschke | Research Fellow | benno.blaschke@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Naturally, everyone blames “fertility.” As though biology suddenly went on strike sometime around 1992. But neither ovaries nor sperm unionised. The culprit is more prosaic—house prices. It turns out the stork demands a 20% deposit. Americans, for once, took the lead. A new study confirmed what few were willing to admit. Housing costs explain more than half the baby drought. If housing had been more affordable in recent decades, decline in fertility would have been smaller by 51%. New Zealand's own Treasury-Reserve Bank brain trust signalled this relationship years earlier. Nobody listened. Apparently, it takes Americans to make uncomfortable economic truths undeniable. High house prices, it seems, are nature’s most reliable contraceptive. They work particularly well on the young. Show them a Trade Me listing and watch their libido fall by 40%. I remember sitting at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. A group of young analysts, bright and hopeful, argued for more competitive urban land markets to reduce the artificially inflated land prices propping up our house values. Senior officials, with the serene confidence of people sitting on mature property portfolios, told them to “just go rent; it’s the same as owning anyway.” A charming idea. Almost whimsical. Like suggesting money does not matter after you have made yours. The same generation that encourages lifelong renting has conveniently forgotten it also expects younger workers to fund their retirement. Preferably, those who are actually having babies. Preferably, ones not living in childhood bedrooms. But whenever successive governments try to reform housing, every effort quietly diffuses inside Wellington’s most underrated macroeconomic force: senior ranks of officialdom. These are institutions that have mastered the art of polite obstruction to protect incumbent interests. They nod earnestly, commission a discussion paper, schedule another consultation round and ensure competitive urban land markets never actually materialise. The irony is perfect. A retirement serenely free of grandchildren, because there will not be many. A masterclass, really, in preserving high house prices while inadvertently losing the species. Oops. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |